From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:31:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] support for oom_die In-Reply-To: <20060412101154.019e9cb3.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20060411142909.1899c4c4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060412101154.019e9cb3.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > More description: > Why they want panic at OOM ? > Another is failover system. Because they can replace system immediately > at panic, they doesn't need oom_kill. This makes perfect sense to me. Of course, one of the guys developing our cluster software sits in the cube next to me, so I do get to see quite a bit of the cluster software ;) -- All Rights Reversed -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org